Paris v. The Elizabeth Fry Society of Ottawa, 2012 HRTO 164

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kizzy Paris Applicant

-and-

The Elizabeth Fry Society of Ottawa, Bryonie Baxter and Chantal Surgeson Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty Date: January 20, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 164 Indexed as: Paris v. The Elizabet Fry Society of Ottawa

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s request that a hearing scheduled for February 6, 2012 be rescheduled. For the reasons that follow, the applicant’s request is denied.

BACKGROUND

2The applicant filed an Application on April 21, 2010 under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”). There is a dispute between the parties as to whether or not they have entered into a binding settlement agreement.

3In a Case Assessement Direction, dated May 27, 2011, the Tribunal indicated that a one-day in-person hearing would be scheduled to address the following issue:

Do the minutes of settlement entered into by the parties bar the Application against the respondents, either pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code or because of the doctrine of abuse of process?

4The hearing has been scheduled for February 6, 2012. On November 22, 2011, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Hearing (“Notice”) to the applicant at the mailing address she had provided. The Notice was returned to the Tribunal as undeliverable.

5On December 9, 2011, the Tribunal emailed the applicant. It wrote:

The Tribunal attempted to send you a copy of the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing via regular mail, dated November 22, 2011 to your address …. The mail was returned to the Tribunal and marked by Canada Post as “Moved.” Please provide the Tribunal and all other Parties a copy of your current address forthwith.

6The Notice was resent to the applicant on December 12, 2011 at the new address she provided.

7On January 17, 2011, the applicant emailed the Tribunal and counsel for the respondent. She asked that the February 6, 2012 hearing be rescheduled because she “requires legal support to prepare for this matter.” She indicates that she will be meeting with the Human Rights Legal Support Centre on January 24, 2012.

DECISION

8The Notice of Hearing clearly states that parties must act quickly if they are unavailable on that date and that they must advise the Tribunal of their unavailability within 14 days of receiving the Notice.

9Further, the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments provides:

Requests for adjournments, particularly at the last minute, are a significant impediment to fair and timely access to justice. Therefore, the HRTO will only grant adjournments in extraordinary circumstances such as illness of a party, witness or representative. Absent exceptional circumstances, the HRTO will not grant adjournments, even when all parties consent.

10In its May 27, 2011 CAD, the Tribunal indicated that a hearing would be scheduled and set out the specific legal issues that would be addressed at that hearing. The applicant has had ample time since May 27, 2011 to obtain legal advice. Further, the applicant has indicated that she will, in fact, have an opportunity to meet with legal counsel in advance of the February 6, 2012 hearing date.

11Second, although the applicant did not receive the Notice sent to her on November 22, 2011 this was because of her own failure to notify the Tribunal of her change of address, as required by Rule 1.13 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. In addition, she had notice, as of December 9, 2011, that a hearing had been scheduled. (See the Tribunal’s email, in paragraph 6, above).

12Third, the applicant waited well over two weeks after receiving the actual Notice before seeking an adjournment of the hearing.

13The Tribunal has held that, where it is satisfied that a party has had an opportunity to prepare for the hearing (including an opportunity to obtain legal assistance), it is not appropriate to grant a late-stage adjournment: see Fucile v. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1787 and Rastel v. Dryden Police Services Board, 2011 HRTO 1974.

14The applicant’s request for an adjournment is denied. I am not satisfied that the applicant’s request for additional time to obtain legal advice is an extraordinary circumstance that warrants an adjournment or rescheduling of the hearing at this late stage.